tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post5641866877930411750..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Jerry Coyne On Why Science and Religion Cannot Be FriendsJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-71286038442708890882010-10-18T16:25:07.365-04:002010-10-18T16:25:07.365-04:00Hi Jim and Jesse. Well, for example, for those of...Hi Jim and Jesse. Well, for example, for those of us that are evolutionary creationists, the area of non-overlap would be the scientific constructs. The Bible simply isn't a science book. The Bible is a testament of God's character and how we are to interact with Him. The areas of overlap would be the social and religious interactions. The way Dr. Coyne writes, he assumes that there cannot be a God because he cannot see or hear him. This flies in the face of the experiences of many, including Augustine, Peter Abelard, C.S. Lewis (who started out as an atheist) and many, many others, like myself, who have experienced the presence of God in our lives. <br /><br />C.S. Lewis wrote about the value of religious inquiry by addressing the longing in his life for something outside of himself and the life he had. By his own admission he was "dragged, kicking and screaming" into belief in God. Religious inquiry addresses an area of our existence that science has a hard time quantifying. <br /><br />We might look at a sunset and be able to describe why we see what we see. We then might be moved by the sheer beauty that we see. Why? What is the advantage of thinking that the sunset is beautiful? That is the part of our being that, in those of us who believe in Him, God speaks to. That is the part that convinced C.S. Lewis that there had to be more than just his existence. <br /><br />The above is not well exposited but I wanted to get something down.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-91186835899675936682010-10-16T19:11:26.106-04:002010-10-16T19:11:26.106-04:00It is a dangerous waste of time to contrast scienc...It is a dangerous waste of time to contrast science, which is hard enough to define, with "religion" or "faith", which are extremely amorphous terms. Besides, disbelief is a form of belief and anti-religion is a form of religion.rigadoonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-2125400946018740542010-10-16T17:45:56.764-04:002010-10-16T17:45:56.764-04:00"The thing is that while others regard religi..."The thing is that while others regard religious inquiry as valid, he does not. That is not a failing of religious inquiry, it is a reductionistic view on his part."<br /><br />Can you be more explicit regarding his logical error? Why do you think religious forms of inquiry are valid?Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805021768974135945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-30738294255251342672010-10-16T17:13:37.850-04:002010-10-16T17:13:37.850-04:00James, I enjoy following your blog even though I a...James, I enjoy following your blog even though I am squarely in the Gnu Atheist camp. This post of yours confuses me, so I expect I am misunderstanding you. Let me assume for the sake of argument that both forms of inquiry are meaningful. Is it reasonable to create a classic Venn diagram with 1 overlapping area and 2 non overlapping areas? Do you think that all three areas are non-empty? If so, can you provide examples of what falls in the intersection?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17756800478010205070noreply@blogger.com